What Went Wrong with Ontario's Energy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What went wrong with Ontario’s energy policy? Comparing spin & reality Compiled for CENTRAL BRUCE-GREY WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO By Keith Stelling, MA, (McMaster) MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England) 10 April, 2010 http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/ [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Background 4 About this report 9 I. Feasibility: Where are the CO2 emission savings? 9 II. Cost/benefit accounting: How much? Who pays? Who knows? 17 III. Job creation: 50,000 new “green” jobs? But how many job losses? 39 Conclusion 56 References 55 2 Executive Summary By referring to the economic experience of those European countries that have vigorously promoted wind energy over the last two decades, this report demonstrates that the decisions of the Ontario government did not take into consideration the reality of introducing large scale industrial wind energy onto the grid. In fact, the government’s enthusiasm to embrace what it claimed to be cheap, “clean”, environmentally benign electricity at the same time as diminishing CO2 emissions appears to have ignored all the realistic information that was available, leaving an energy policy based on little more than a leap of faith. Wind energy is neither cheap nor environmentally benign, as this report will demonstrate. This compilation of recently published information demonstrates that Ontario’s energy policy is seriously flawed. It is based upon assumptions that never have and never will be substantiated in practice. Using European reports, it shows that industrial wind turbine and solar panel complexes do not lower CO2 emissions when added in any quantity to the grid. In some instances, in fact, it may even increase CO2 emissions because of the fossil fuel back-up required to compensate for the inconsistencies of these renewables. Claims by the government that costs associated with the Green Energy Act are insignificant are shown to be incorrect. “Green” job creation statistics from other countries indicate that government estimates are wildly exaggerated and that subsidizing renewables has a negative effect on the economy. Shifting the cost of renewables subsidies to consumers despite handsome profits for developers (predominantly multinationals) is unacceptable to taxpayers and detrimental to the economy. This report calls for an immediate public review of the government’s energy policy; a judicial enquiry into the inconsistencies, 3 inaccurate assumptions, and long-term detrimental effect on the environment by the Green Energy Act; and an investigation of the cost/benefit implications of the government’s energy policy by the Auditor General. Introduction Ontario’s energy policy is raising serious concerns from a broad range of critics. They are questioning its economic and environmental feasibility, cost effectiveness and ability to ensure both energy security and grid stability. Government predictions of thousands of new “green” jobs have been met with skepticism. The censure comes from economists, electricity generation experts, bankers, municipal councillors, prominent academics, opposition MPPs, medical professionals, citizens’ groups and electricity consumers. Unless policies and practices change soon, the damage will be impossible to remedy. Background The Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure introduced its Green Energy Act in 2009. According to the Minister, the act was designed to eliminate “social roadblocks” (public consultation and objection) over the siting of renewable energy infrastructure projects—in particular industrial wind turbine developments. The act promoted “fast tracking” (rubber stamping) of environmental approvals for all electricity infrastructure projects, removed the long-established local planning process and left rural residents without effective noise complaint protocols and municipalities with no voice in their own community development. It also dismantled much of Ontario’s environmental 4 protection legislation through a multitude of amendments to various other acts. And yet, the Act was given both first and second reading before going to committee, highly unusual for a piece of legislation that amended so many other statutes. Within an abnormally short space of time it had been given second and third reading and passed into law by the Government majority without proper scrutiny and without meaningful public input or transparent public debate. The Green Energy Act was originally proposed by the Ontario Green Energy Act Alliance,1 a coalition of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, together with other trade associations, developers, manufacturers, and environmental groups including the David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defence Canada, Pembina Institute and World Wildlife Fund Canada. Their proposal eventually formed the basis of the Green Energy Act. 2 However, Tom Adams, former head of Energy Probe, has pointed out problems of accountability in the Green Energy Act. He notes the disturbing conflicts of interest in government funding of NGO’s whereby taxpayer dollars were used to create a support base for the government’s agenda—a new phenomenon that was never recognized or addressed.3 1 “Proposal for a Green Energy Act for Ontario Proposal for an Act Granting Priority to Renewable Energy Sources to Manage Global Climate Change, Protect the Environment and Streamline Project Approvals prepared by the Ontario Green Energy Act Alliance January 10, 2009”. http://www.greenenergyact.ca/Storage/24/1605_1477_GEA- Proposal_with_hyperlinks.pdf Energy Act Alliance: 2 In January 2009, Kent Hawkins BSc. (E.E.) wrote a critique of the Green Energy Act Proposal, pointing out to the government the flawed thinking behind it: “Green Energy Act Proposal is Flawed; A critique of the Ontario Green Energy Act Alliance’s proposed legislation”. http://windconcernsontario.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/green_energy_act_is_flawed_wco.p df 3 During a panel discussion at the York University Osgoode Hall Law School Professional Development conference on June 15, 2009, Tom Adams noted: “The Green Energy Act is a fundamental retrenchment of our basic civil rights and freedoms and also a perverse new electricity tax, the revenues of which will be paid to a 5 Terrence Corcoran, 4 writing in the Financial Post (March 6, 2009) has also questioned the intimacy between the green Energy Act Alliance and the Government. group of private developers of renewable energy projects and also secretive new government departments shielded from accountability to mechanisms that normally apply when government spending is involved.” “The G.E.A. shuts down local democracy with respect to renewable energy and energy conservation decision making. It provides for whole classes of customers to be exempted from increased costs of green energy if they are on the right side of the Minister”. “The G.E.A. creates a secretive new government agency whose job it is to promote business interests but is shielded from citizen and legislative oversight and accountability. The G.E.A. destroys the foundation for effective utility regulation by taking away the independence of the Ontario Energy Board and weakening the right of citizens who might be seeking the protection of the Environmental Review Tribunal.” “Under the G.E.A., cabinet will be able to set levels for special taxes on energy to be paid by energy consumers. The tax revenue from that will not be subject to the normal scrutiny that other tax revenue is subject to”. Adams also raised the question of conflict of interest in which taxpayer dollars are used to create a support base for the government’s agenda, noting that the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association receives funding from four government sources: the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, the Trillium Fund and the Community Power Fund—which was set up in 2007 with a $3 million endowment from the Ontario Government which it used to support the Green Energy Act. Adams points out also that the Pembina Institute receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Ontario Power Authority and at the same time from prominent wind power producers from Ontario. Adams’ remarks are available on You Tube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT62LNcbJBI 4 According to Corcoran, “among the backers of the alliance is the Pembina Institute. The institute’s former climate campaigner, Robert Hornung, is now head of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which in turn gives money to Pembina. Pembina writes glowing reports on renewables. Pembina also receives money from the Ontario Power Authority, the Ontario Energy Board and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources”. “Another alliance backer is Environmental Defence, the radical Ottawa-based activist group headed by Rick Smith. Last year, Environmental Defence received $500,000 in funding from the government of Ontario. It would appear that one source of that money was the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, which is largely funded by Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government. Rick Smith recently resigned from the Greenbelt Foundation, where he was a director”. “Another Green Act Alliance backer is the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. It gets money from local community groups, such as the York Region Environmental Alliance, which is largely funded by the agenda-driven Ontario Trillium Foundation, which spends Ontario lottery cash. The Clean Air Alliance also counts the Energy Action Council of Toronto as a member. Its major backers include the Ontario Energy